Appeal
from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (John M.
Hunt, J.), dated November 23, 2016. The order denied the
father's objections to an order of that court (Sudeep
Kaur, S.M.), dated August 24, 2016, which, after a hearing,
granted the mother's petition for an upward modification
of the father's child support obligation and to direct
the father to pay child support arrears.

ORDERED
that the order dated November 23, 2016, is affirmed, without
costs or disbursements.

The
parties were married on September 14, 2007, and divorced by a
judgment of divorce dated October 28, 2011. They have three
children together. Pursuant to the terms of a stipulation of
settlement dated March 25, 2011, which was incorporated but
not merged into the judgment of divorce, the father was
directed to pay the sum of $200 per month for child support.
In August 2015, the mother filed a petition for an upward
modification of the father's child support obligation and
to direct the father to pay child support arrears for the
period of January 2012 to August 2015. Following a hearing,
at which the father represented himself, in an order dated
August 24, 2016, the Support Magistrate granted the
mother's petition in its entirety. Thereafter, the father
filed timely objections to the Support Magistrate's
order, which the Family Court denied in an order dated
November 23, 2016. The father appeals from the order dated
November 23, 2016.

The
father's contention that the mother failed to demonstrate
a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant
an upward modification of his child support obligation is not
properly before this Court, as it was not raised in his
objections to the Support Magistrate's order (see
Matter of Daily v Govan, 136 A.D.3d 1029, 1031;
Matter of Worner v Gavin, 134 A.D.3d 1043). In any
event, his contention is without merit.

Since
the parties' stipulation of settlement, which set forth
the father's child support obligation, was executed after
the effective date of the 2010 amendments to Family Court Act
§ 451, in order to establish an entitlement to an upward
modification, the mother had the burden of demonstrating
"a substantial change in circumstances" (Family Ct
Act § 451[3][a]; see Matter of Lagani v Li, 131
A.D.3d 1246, 1247-1248; Matter of Pepe v Pepe, 128
A.D.3d 831, 834). "Among the factors to be considered in
determining whether there has been a change in circumstances
warranting an upward modification of support are the
increased needs of the children, the increased cost of living
insofar as it results in greater expenses for the children, a
loss of income or assets by a parent or a substantial
improvement in the financial condition of a parent, and the
current and prior lifestyles of the children'"
(McMahon v McMahon, 19 A.D.3d 464, 464-465, quoting
Shedd v Shedd, 277 A.D.2d 917, 918; see Matter
of Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895, 897).
" [T]he [custodial parent's] financial status is
also a proper consideration'" (Matter of Green v
Silver, 96 A.D.3d 843, 845, quoting Matter of Boden
v Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 212).

Here,
the mother presented uncontroverted testimony and other
evidence as to specific expenses related to the care of the
children, including specific increased expenses related to
the children's extracurricular activities. In addition,
she submitted her 2015 income tax return, which, together
with her testimony and financial disclosure affidavit,
revealed that even with the father's $200 child support
contribution, the mother was financially unable to meet the
needs of the children. The father failed to provide complete
and credible financial information. Under these
circumstances, the Support Magistrate properly concluded that
there was a substantial change in circumstances which
warranted a modification of the existing order of support
(see Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 A.D.3d 779,
780; Matter of Ryan v Levine, 80 A.D.3d 767, 767).

Contrary
to the father's contention, he was not deprived of the
right to counsel. The father did not have a right to assigned
counsel in this support proceeding (see Family Ct
Act § 262[a]; Matter of Nicotra v Nicotra, 139
A.D.3d 1070; Matter of Lada v Lada, 231 A.D.2d 521),
and the record establishes that the father was advised of his
right to retain counsel but instead elected to represent
himself with regard to this proceeding (see Family
Ct Act § 433[a]; Matter of Lada v Lada, 231
A.D.2d 521). Moreover, since the father chose to represent
himself at the hearing, the resultant award will not be set
aside due to the alleged inadequacy of that
self-representation (see Matter of Adams-Eppes v
Fulton, 195 A.D.2d 455; Linder v Linder, 122
A.D.2d 27).

The
father's remaining contentions are without merit.

ROMAN,
J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.